MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_01C612B7.9DD56180"
This document is a Single File Web Page, also known as a Web Archive file. If you are seeing this message, your browser or editor doesn't support Web Archive files. Please download a browser that supports Web Archive, such as Microsoft Internet Explorer.
------=_NextPart_01C612B7.9DD56180
Content-Location: file:///C:/4F8B5EB9/iwks_spam_breakthrough_splits_industry.htm
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

Microsoft=
, AOL
and Yahoo! have all introduced separate sender authentication solutions to
reduce spam emails, despite signing an agreement last year to work together=
on
the problem.

Authentic=
ating
the identity of email senders is the sharpest, shiniest new weapon in the f=
ight
against unsolicited messaging. Microsoft's proposal, Caller ID, works by re=
cipient
email servers checking the IP address or domain of an email against a list =
of
addresses published by the sender. If it isn't on the list, the email will =
be
identified as spam.

AOL is
trialling Sender Policy Framework, which works in a similar way, while Yaho=
o!
has developed DomainKeys, which matches 'signatures' on a message heading to
signatures on the purported sender's server.

They prev=
ent
domain spoofing, a practice that avoids spam filters by assuming someone el=
se's
sender address. Fraudsters use it to go 'phishing', extracting money from
credit cards, say, by sending emails they pretend are from the card owners'
bank.

Publishin=
g IP
address information could affect some businesses, such as email forwarding
companies. Ken Schneider, the CTO of Brightmail, the leading email security
software developer which is working with Microsoft on Caller ID, explains:
“Email authentication may require certain changes in email behaviour
– especially those cases where email is being sent from an IP address=
not
associated with the sending domain.”

While the
Microsoft, AOL and Yahoo! technology is being trailed, the security company
MailKey already has a solution in the market: SenderID, a protocol that runs
tests on incoming emails. Although MailKey will sell SenderID with its Mess=
age
Manager package, it hopes other software companies will use the protocol for
their own applications. If all servers can use SenderID, or similar technol=
ogy
of their own, “it will kill identity theft and spoofing,” accor=
ding
to the chief operating officer David Dobson.

D=
irect
Mail at Risk
This should interest businesses that use email marketing, because spoofers =
can
use their addresses to deliver spam. As Dobson at MailKey puts it, “T=
he
danger is that people will not respond to any communication, no matter how
legitimate it looks, for fear of infecting their computer, losing money or
being prone to some other kind of abuse.”

Spoofing =
aside,
businesses that follow the recent legislation on privacy and electronic
communications should be able to reach their customers without any problems=
.

But some
industry figures argue that the sheer volume of spam has made customers less
trustful and interested in legitimate mail. Robert Dirskovski, head of
interactive media at the Direct Marketing Association, believes email marke=
ters
have already lost the battle – that their messages are considered
together with unsolicited messages as junk mail. He argues that instead of
trying to differentiate opt-in practices from intrusive mail and malware, t=
he
industry should focus on reducing the volume of spam. And that's where the
technology comes in.

P=
ositive
Reaction
The reaction to sender authentication technology has been positive. Legitim=
ate
marketers believe it will hold their illegitimate peers to account. Industry
bodies welcome the emphasis on technology, rather than legislation, which is
harder to implement across borders. And ISPs look forward to any reduction =
in
spam, which takes up much of their time and resources.

=
p>

But is the
proliferation of sender authentication software the best way forward? Neil
Morris, deputy managing director of the Institute of Direct Marketing, says,
“There are already too many alternate offerings in the online chain t=
hat
make it very difficult for businesses, as senders, particularly SMEs, and
customers, as recipients, to understand what's going on.”

<=
/span>

Gartner
research director Arabella Hellawell agrees. She has criticised so many
technologies being developed, saying, “These multiple specifications =
will
impede adoption, as will the need to introduce new inter-enterprise practic=
es
and technology upgrades.”

It makes =
sense
for US companies to develop the technology: most spam comes from the US. But
many people would rather see an industry-wide collaboration, and are unnerv=
ed
that Microsoft is already offering a patent licence for Caller ID. What hap=
pens
over the next few months is critical. If the new proposals prove compatible=
, or
can be whittled down through testing, they should become worthy weapons aga=
inst
spam. Better still, they could help protect the medium of email marketing,
which small businesses have come to depend on as a cheap, targeted and
measurable way to reach their customers.

H=
OT
TOPIC: Where do you stand on spam and sender authentication?

=

“Au=
thentication
is critical because it forces senders to be accountable. This protects the =
good
senders and puts the spammers in jeopardy, exactly where they should be.=
221;Joshua BaerMember of the Email Service Provi=
der
Coalition’s steering committee

“My
concerns are that the very providers of email marketing and ancillary
technology are not necessarily the best people to try and put an end to spa=
m. I
don’t doubt their motives, but it’s an invidious position they =
find
themselves in. It's a bit like Ferrari trying to introduce speed cameras and
sleeping policemen.”Nik MargolisClient services director of email
marketing firm Inbox

“[A=
uthentication]
sounds great, but in reality it is very difficult to put into practice. Whi=
le
reputable companies would be happy to be authenticated and for all mail ser=
vers
that receive mail to be updated to perform the checks, there will be compan=
ies
that do not co-operate and this jeopardises the whole system.”Steve KennedyHead of product futures at
communication provider THUS

“Em=
ail
recipients are already capable of distinguishing between spam and
permission-based emails... it doesn't take long to spot all the variants of
‘Viagra’ in a subject line.”Dave ChaffeyEmail marketing trainer for the
Chartered Institute of Marketing

<=
/p>

“If=
we
eventually realise a solution where ISPs could simply refuse to carry mail =
from
non-authenticated senders, this would have a significant impact on the leve=
ls
of email traffic that ISPs would need to handle.”Karl RobinsonManaging director of business ISP
Mistral

“An=
ything
that the major ISPs can do to help legitimate, opt-in and permission-based
marketers get in the inbox is obviously welcomed. Over 50 per cent of UK
consumers use Hotmail, AOL and Yahoo! – as one of those consumers I'm=
fed
up with finding junk mail in my inbox and email that I signed up for in my =
junk
folder.”Mike Parry=
Sales director of marketing firm
Interactive Prospect Targeting